So Who Are They and Where Are They Now

a reply to: Blue Shift

There is some speculation as to some form of pre-Adamic humanoids and ancient civilization being buried beneath the ice sheets of Antartica which apparently had somewhat of a more conducive climate around the time of the younger Dryas period.

End of the day through any kind of conclusive proof remains to be seen.

on dark side of moon

originally posted by: Hanslune
Some interesting speculation here much of it contradictory.

right on the surface and completely intact from bodies to technology to living creatures.

Link?

Hanslune….no links...you start a thread asking for information on the Vlar Global Continental Displacement Wave Model as discussed on ATS.....you OP it, and you agree to NOT REQUEST LINKS....with the understanding that the data is original to ATS and any links will be given voluntarily as the thread evolves not upon demand.

Speculation-contradictory....I am not a deep source...lol...I am trying to drum up interest in a reality not everyone shares.....I am by definition of perspective a minority and am by definition of intentions a survivor....I don't care if some hack wishes to write a white Paper on the VGCDW Model...I don't care if anyone with the exception of a filthy rich equally smart survivor who wishes to be a White Knight ever reads the words Vlar Global Continental Displacement Wave Model......I am not trying to convince anyone of anything I am trying desperately to survive.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Blue Shift

There is some speculation as to some form of pre-Adamic humanoids and ancient civilization being buried beneath the ice sheets of Antartica which apparently had somewhat of a more conducive climate around the time of the younger Dryas period.

End of the day through any kind of conclusive proof remains to be seen.

I don't buy any BS about the Dryas period...all of the data we have been fed is bastardised...and yes the PROFESSIONALLY STATUS QUO SUPPORTED AND VALIDATED data is almost pure BS.

The VGCDW Model shows you just where Antatctica came from before it was dragged at warp speeds to where it is now....NA was the last Continent to be unthawed...this go-round NA will move closer to the equator and Antarctica will slip out of the polar region to be replaced by a NEW Continent ......everything will click into a new spot round the planet. Antarctica was located in a moderate climate zone before it was spirited to its current location.

a reply to: one4all

A pole shift could have also somewhat changed Antatcticas orientation hence the reason for the climate change.

Fact is we simply will not know until we extensively explore the continent but for some reason "They" dont make it easy for that to happen, considering the permits and permissions required, and laws we have regarding what can and cannot be done in a place that essentially belongs to nobody.

a reply to: one4all

Thanks for those links on fast oil. I found some info on fast coal and lab coal also. I am sure these will help me to formulate my own thinking although I don't really have a coherent picture yet. I am still interested in fast formation of stone from mud rock.

I was wondering where you got the idea of 3657 years from. After some searching, I came up with this: The Wormwood Clock. It looks like some Velikovsky tier suff.

a reply to: toms54

I know that what you are saying is correct because similar experiences in my family and my mother was very sensitive.
Remember what Jesus said, God is the god of the living not of the dead and he that believes in me shall never died and even though he were dead yet shall he live which can be seen in a very accurate way since he is the living spirit of God true God from True God incarnate as the son and back at the fathers right hand in the spirit by being taken into that spirit we can not then know death, the physical world is however dead to us until he restores it and even the body's promised for the resurrected - in the resurrection you shall have a new body like the angels a celestial (heavenly or spiritual) body - are obviously therefore to use today's parlance higher dimensional form's.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Today we ALL sit atop massive amount's of natural geothermal heat, we don't even have to dig down that far just far enough for the water to boil to create steam and power geothermal energy plant's - non of the nasty by products of costly solar cell manufacture.

Only near volcanoes and areas with high geothermal activity - like Yellowstone.
Those are places where it's obviously no good to build power plants.
On average, the temperature increases by 25 degrees C per kilometer, which is about 72 degrees per mile. A three-mile deep hole would do it.

Harte

Ah I disagree heart, still you make a good point for the easy to reach near the surface hot rock's but of course when was the last time you went down a mine the temperature rises the deeper you go.

Now that mean's that as long as you dig deep enough, the same technology currently used to bore into very deep oil deposits should suffice in most region's, then the entire surface of the earth has geothermal energy available.

In fact I would even go so far as to say that while it is easier to tap those heat source when they are very close to the surface of the earth it is also potentially foolish - but in fact I would be wrong for one single reason tapping those active regions would also create new scientific date and could even lead to the development of techniques to geoform (sorry borrowing from sci fi there what I mean to say is alter the parameters creating the instability by intervening in some way and so make the instability less unstable) them into more stable regions by learning to control the geology of those region's, triggering small quakes to head off larger one by releasing pent up tension in fault's for example - of course we would have to know exactly what we were doing or those deep fracking type action's could also exacerbate the situation and even make it far worse.

Even here in the UK and we are a very geologically stable region of the world barring some slow plate tilting which has been going on since the end of the ice age and is still progressing today (London is sinking and Edinburgh is rising if you catch my drift) were it is possible to tap into those heat sources, miners here often had to dig relatively shallow coal seem's in temperatures much higher than the surface.

This is not because there are people working there which would of course add to the heat but because the deeper you get the more trapped heat there is in the rock.
coalmine.proboards.com...
Of course you would have to go a bloody good bit deeper than these mine's to tap into the heat you want but of course deep drilling which is used the world over today to drill oil deposits and also to drill for shale oil extraction in fracking operations (which is usually closer to the surface and also far more destructive to the immediate environment) are making use of the very technology and engineering skill's we would need to tap that,.

Now if the russky's could do this decades ago with likely inferior technology then how deep and easy could we drill today, yes there is variably strata and some regions' are EASIER to drill than others with some deposits' killing drill head's in second's but the general principle remain's we could drill anywhere and find the heat we need to power geothermal energy sources.
www.atlasobscura.com...

Best way of doing it, drill two (or rather two clusters) of deep bore holes, frack or otherwise create permeability at the bottom of the bores to link these two clusers up by creating a region through the hot rock's which is horizontal, pump pressurized water down bore A and use the steam generated and released via bore B to drive your turbine, allow the water to cool and reuse it pumping it back down bore A again, of course if you could move the turbine DOWN Bore B to were it could harvest the most energetic steam it would be far better so it is not quite as simple as that except in principle.

Hey make's you wonder how many of those D.U.M.B's are tapping natural geothermal energy or perhaps using underground rivers to drive more traditional turbine's doesn't it.

originally posted by: toms54
a reply to: one4all

Thanks for those links on fast oil. I found some info on fast coal and lab coal also. I am sure these will help me to formulate my own thinking although I don't really have a coherent picture yet. I am still interested in fast formation of stone from mud rock.

I was wondering where you got the idea of 3657 years from. After some searching, I came up with this: The Wormwood Clock. It looks like some Velikovsky tier suff.

I didnt read Vlikovskys data until I was aged......I will follow the lead....David Hamel was my first external validation of my data recieved during childhood abductions by Military Humans Wearing Blue one-piece Uniforms operating Neutral Dimension Craft.

The VGCDW Model is inclusive of the generic push of Velikovsky and many others.It validates them all to differing degrees.Today the source most people will likely resonate with is Gill Broussard and his work on Planet7x......his timeline is very interesting....and his sources are also interesting.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: one4all

A pole shift could have also somewhat changed Antatcticas orientation hence the reason for the climate change.

This is exactly the subject of a link I posted earlier: The Earth crust displacement theory by Charles H. Hapgood.

I was attracted to it at first by the fact that I already had one of his books Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings.

In this one, he tries to use shifting of the pole over time to account for the Peri Ries map showing Antarctica. His ideas were eventually dismissed because antarctic ice cores show the edges of the continent to have never been free of ice during any of human history.

Personally, I am not sure what to make of this. Isn't it possible for a very old, deep sheet of ice to have slid from the interior up to the edge? We know glaciers move over time.

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: one4all

A pole shift could have also somewhat changed Antatcticas orientation hence the reason for the climate change.

This is exactly the subject of a link I posted earlier: The Earth crust displacement theory by Charles H. Hapgood.

I was attracted to it at first by the fact that I already had one of his books Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings.

In this one, he tries to use shifting of the pole over time to account for the Peri Ries map showing Antarctica. His ideas were eventually dismissed because antarctic ice cores show the edges of the continent to have never been free of ice during any of human history.

Personally, I am not sure what to make of this. Isn't it possible for a very old, deep sheet of ice to have slid from the interior up to the edge? We know glaciers move over time.

Hapgood was on the right track....generically...its impossible to believe anything regarding dates and ages put forth by Academics....even names of times are bastardised....they represent thousands of years as HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS.....lol...I mean seriously once you begin trying to tell people fresh LIQUID crude oil you can eat is millions of years old....I mean really.....you have to tell an awful lot of lies over and over and over and invest trillions of dollars over time in the business of suppression which has in fact been done.


Once you see the VGCDW Model Hapgoods work becomes validated as does Velikovskys and many others....and the Ancient maps fit...AND...we know what is coming next....genericlly speaking.

a reply to: toms54

Yes funny how the Portuguese came across ancient maps of the place devoid of ice that pretty much line up with our current maps of the area in certain ways.

Odd really, undoubtedly so.

a reply to: one4all

I used to believe in Hapgood's theory and it remains' a credible THEORY.

But - there is evidence which contradict's any such massive global crust shift for at least the last few hundred million years.

Hawaii, it's age is fairly easy to determine since it is a volcanic island chain, now it is reasoned that the vulcanism which creates the Hawaiian islands is actually due to the crust of the earth at that location moving over something called a Deep sub crustal thermal plume, these thermal plume's consist of heat rising up from the inner earth toward the surface and then breaking through the crust forming volcano's, now they are different to volcano's such as those on the boundary of continent's which are created by lava which form's as a result of heat generated through the friction between plate's during there collision or as one plate slides over another, instead these deep thermal plume's (Yellowstone is thought to be another) rise from the CORE of the planet.

Now what you have to ask yourself has this got to do with crustal displacement theory, well if a crustal displacement happened you would expect the crust to have moved away from the sub crustal thermal plume and so the island's volcano's to then become extinct while new island's would be forming somewhere else - were the crust had now moved itself to OVER the sub crustal thermal plume but in the case of the Hawaiian island's that is not what we find (at least not to the degree of movement that would be expected by such a huge shift of the earth's outer surface), instead we find a chain of island's and a chain of sea mount's (former island's and former volcano's) which diminish neatly back into the ocean floor as each sea mount which was perhaps at one time long ago an actually island just like those we know of today above the water has been moved slowly away from the underlying deep crust thermal plume and this demonstrates that at least at that place the crust has NOT moved significantly beyond ordinary plate tectonics's and plate drift within the life of that chain of volcano's from the newest being the current Hawaiian island's to the oldest being almost now settled back into the ocean crust now deep beneath the ocean.

But of course if Hawaii was at the pole of such a shift that could explain that away except that it is not just at Hawaii we find this, study some barometric map's which show ocean topography around the world and highlight the active volcano's, then filter out those that are not on the periphery of plates which are powered by friction created vulcanism and so to isolate those that are likely deep sub crustal thermal plume's and you find much the same pattern as at the Hawaiian island's with few exception's.

I still think however that from a mechanical perspective and as sound reasoning that despite this contrary evidence the theory is a sound one and it may have happened within the lifetime of our planet, probably though when it was very much younger and the crust far thinner than today.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Maybe I am just not knowledgeable enought with these theories. I fail to see how Hawaii is evidence which contradict's any such massive global crust shift for at least the last few hundred million years.

a reply to: toms54

Well if you look at it this way, assuming that the dating is right (and there is another entire set of argument's about that) then we know more or less the geological age of the rock's from which Hawaii is formed.

We can estimate how long it took for the islands to form (guesstimate may be more accurate but with some real science involved) and by studying the layers lain down by successive eruption's and dating the remains of material from plant life trapped under each layer a rough estimate of how long ago each of these eruptions took place can be arrived at.

Then we can work backward to arrive at a fairly accurate date for the age of each island, then if we know that we know how often on average the volcano becomes active, this in turn let's us guess at how long the island itself has existed and also by mixing this with the ESTIMATED rate of movement of the crustal plate on which the island chain has formed coupled with the previous island's most of which are now a chain of extinct volcano's receding away from the active one we can estimate how long the plume has itself been creating these island's (of course to be far more accurate a lot more geological sample's would have to be taken from these now sunken former island's to gain more evidence).

This in itself show's a region which has continually moved at a predictable rate of motion roughly in line with estimates for tectonic drift (tectonic's as opposed to Hapgood's skin of an orange theory and which do not actually contradict his theory on there own is a theory about individual platelet's - portions of the earth's surface - drifting over the semi liquid layers that lay underneath it a bit like when you have a rice pudding cooking in a pan and there is a skin which forms but breaks apart as the boiling material makes it's way upward and through that skin).

The current model is that there have been a number of so called super continent's at least seven the last one called pangea which split apart about 180 million years or so ago, this split widened over time until it became the Atlantic ocean, according to Plate tectonic's theory america was once connected to Europe, south america to Africa and this is why they look like they 'almost' fit together like pieces of a jigsaw, of course it is only one theory and there are creationist theory's (I still believe in creation and see no conflict just a lack of knowledge on OUR part) which model this as happened very rapidly very much more recently.

So the scar (trail of extinct volcanic sea mount's and former islands) left by the predicted rate of drift of the plate upon which hawaii is formed as it floated OVER the sub-crustal (From far beneath the crust itself) thermal plume which remember is not tied to the crust but comes' from beneath it so is NOT affected by crustal movement at all shows what we would expect from normal plate tectonic's in line with plate tectonic Theory and does not show any evidence of Hapgood's theoretical model of RAPID FULL crustal displacement having happened, it is only at one point in the earth but when taken along with other similar features around the planet linked to other NON plate boundary volcano's which may also be formed over sub crustal thermal plume's it provides an extremely compelling argument against ECD having happened at any time within the last few hundred million years.

I am sorry am not the most erudite person so can not condense it down into an easier to understand form but there are plenty on here whom could.

Remember though these are just THEORY not fact there is a very distinct difference between the two thing's.
And also remember this.

biblehub.com...
answersingenesis.org...

a reply to: LABTECH767

Hawaii is on the opposite side of the world from the mid atlantic ridge. The fact it's been relatively stable doesn't mean other plates haven't moved. There are volcanoes and earthquakes all over because they are moving.

So there is no total upheaval of the entire earth. Magnetic north has moved quite a bit in the last few hundred million years. Something is going on. True north may have moved. Would the crustal plate of Hawaii need to move for the edge of Antarctica to reach a point where it is ice free? Maybe, I don't know.

We can measure magnetic orientation to magnetic north but what do we know about true north? If magnetic north moves far enough, will true north follow it?

Maybe we were hit by an asteroid and the earth tilted, I would like to consider a magnetic solution.

a reply to: toms54

That is exactly right and that is down to both ocean crust spreading and also down to what is called plate tectonic's while what ECD or Earth Crust Displacement theory is about is actually NOT plate tectonic's they are different theory's.

Here is a break down of the two, plate tectonic's posits the idea that the surface of the earth since it float's on a semiliquid interior is actually like raft's that bump into one another, ride over one another and merge into a single raft then break apart again from time to time, were they collide mountain's are formed in what is called Crumple zone's.

Separate to that is ECD, now ECD states that if an asymmetrical mass builds up or is formed somewhere on the planet for example at the poles then this disrupts the planets equilibrium and like a gyroscope since the planet is spinning it try's to self correct as a result but were ECD answers how it sometimes does this is to suggest that this can lead to the ENTIRE outer crust of the earth moving in ONE SINGLE PIECE - no plate tectonic's in this model and no individual continental or plate drift just the entire shell moving - and so realign this to restore gyroscopic stabilization of the rotating mass of the earth.

Both theory's have there merit's and both theory's have both there adherent's and there opponent's but in fact they do not rule one another out at all except that if those crustal masses are independently floating plates as posited by plate tectonic theory - which is were we get our earthquake and most of our modern geological research tying into then this by nature does suggest very strongly that ECD is either wrong or has not happened for a very long time - so long in fact it does not explain the sun standing still in the sky - but hey maybe velikovsky was right and there was a huge planet or other mass more recently than is accepted with passed through our solar system.




geologyfreak.com...
And remember there ARE thing's which earth crust displacement would explain even though I am no longer an adherent of the theory as much as I once was.

Here is something from Velikovsky that you may find interesting.

The guy was a genius but most discount or regard his theory's as wrong.


So as you can see from the first two video's the two model's do NOT totally disagree but neither can ECD be completely correct as I have illustrated by the evidence of Hawaii and other thermal plume location's around the globe which would have otherwise shown such a displacement having happened very recently, however they do not DISPROVE it but rather create a hurdle for the theory that has to be explained away in order for it to be made relevant again so ECD could actually happen.

Now remember that Velikovsky's theory is also capable of explaining a pole shift by making the entire AXIS of the planet tilt as such an object passed by, however the last CONFIRMED incident happened a long time ago and that was not through the solar system but very close to it as a red dwarf star passed nearby.

And of course Velikovsky and Hapgood can also work together.

Another explanation for the change in climate in northern europe is the loss of a massive land mass in the Atlantic and changes in ocean and atmospheric current's resultant from this AKA the oceanic conveyor or rather the Atlantic part of it called the Gulf Stream and the Jet Stream another current but in the atmosphere.

It would take me too long to go into here but my own though's is that at or before the end of the last ice age something caused the entire continent of south america to rapidly and catastrophically tilt, the Atlantic ocean bed sank as well at the same time, this caused a massive tidal wave - or several of them to race across both the Atlantic and the pacific perhaps one that was thousands of feet high since it was entire ocean's of water displaced by the upheaval and so they would have raced thousands of miles inland over all continental land masses.

After the continental mass settled down again the subduction of the Atlantic had erased any large islands' of proto continents that may have existed within the young ocean out and also this would have allowed the warming influence of the gulf stream to them flow further north as well as to have changed it's actually direction warming some areas while other's would have gotten far more precipitously cold, I believe that Puma Punku is indeed from the end of the ice age or before and that it was a large city port and harbor complex on an inlet of the pacific much like a tropical Fjord and this event tilted with mega earthquakes as well the entire area upward while the eastern seaboard of south america was pitched thousands of miles into the depth's of the ocean.
This does NOT require ECD it does however fit well with PTT even though such a violent event is not accepted by anyone today, I believe it explains the sunken city off of Cuba as well.
And before anyone say's that there was no evidence under the stone's of Tihuanaco or Puma Punku to support the older dating I recommend they check up more closely on the twentieth century history and RENOVATION - which included partial REBUILDING of the site and which would of course have thrown any such dating out of the window since the site has therefore been very heavily disturbed and to get a true date they would have to dig under that soil to areas of the ruin's that have never been disturbed since the site was originally abandoned and then take there samples, also to remember the site may have been re-occupied at later time's perhaps several time's with some of those precision cut block's being very much older than the stone head's for example.

I'm convinced that the gods of mythology are the gods who create the first humans, look at the Incan and Sumeian creation myth.

First they create a species of Neanderthal and they didn't work well. Then a race of giants and finally us.

a reply to: toysforadults

Except that humanity may be far older than that, look up man as old as Coal in the net, more likely if they were real they dumbed down the human's to make them into slaves - the neanderthal's were human's whom degenerated hiding from the invaders in caves and the cromagnon's were survivors whom escaped to the jungles.
Just as plausible as the idea that aliens created human's when in fact some of those aliens' are by all accounts human's themselves perhaps originating from colonies that began right here long long ago in a galaxy very close to us.

OR it's is all wrong and God created us and god is REAL he is a spirit IE a higher dimensional being and he has angels of many types including some that are by all account's more or less human's - the watchers ie the Sumerian god's whom were punished and banished by Yahweh for there crimes, hell if you believe the claim's that the Sumerians were talking about the same being's then just as the bible say's they were cruel, mated with human woman creating hybrid being's and when there leader became annoyed because the human's were making too much noise Drawing attention to what he was doing here and was not supposed to he tried to wipe them out.
There ark by the way was a coracle not the ark of the old testament of Noah so there Noah was not the same Noah as the old testament Noah.
Coracles are Round this is Not round.

I saw this in a vision, it had white hull, was low in the water and it had a door and two window's at the front of the house like structure on top of it that seemed to be filled with a terrifying darkness.
Under his shadow shalt thou shelter.
It was as if I was seeing through what I can only call the eye's of a dead man, the water was low the sky was grey and raining and ominously overcast and the ark floated past right close very fast almost as if it was powered but hey it was just a vision probably brought on by deep stress - I also saw a ladder reaching up with no top in a dark place, the rung's and stay's were as if one piece of wood a tree grown in that very shape with knot's were branches may once have been and no bark it's wood silvery and hard as iron but cracked along the grain with fine crack's.

This is interesting even if I don't believe this idea, still imagine tree's this big.









There is a theory that we have a collective consciousness or at least unconsciousness and that we are creating our own reality around us as our consciousness warp's space and time to what we are in part projecting outward upon it, if so then maybe sometimes elements of another reality pierce the fog that blind's us and hint at a much grander reality beyond our blindness.

Deleted and just gonna read from a far distance....lol